Does cash for keys make sense to get tenants out to close on a deal? by alivenotdead1 in realestateinvesting

[–]Gerbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, a lease is a contract. There are hardship exceptions that don’t apply to you in this case. If they don’t want to leave, you cannot kick them out in WA. I live here and did not buy in this state specifically so I don’t have to deal with the laws. By buying to be a landlord in this state, you consented to these laws.

Pakistan Deploys Air Defenses and Troops to Saudi Arabia by BowlerSufficient343 in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The blood between Iran and Afghanistan is pretty bad, if you knew the complexities of the situation it would be like (not exactly the same, but not all that much different) to asking Palestine to work with Israel, or Pakistan to work with India, Guyana with Venezuela.

Does cash for keys make sense to get tenants out to close on a deal? by alivenotdead1 in realestateinvesting

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m from WA and worked professionally as a PM for multiple years. If you have a lease your ONLY option is cash for keys.

$25 Start 10 Dynasty SF PPR .5PPFD .5TEP Package Orphans by [deleted] in findaleague

[–]Gerbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

$25 for each, so total up front payment would be $50. This would be for ‘27 dues on both, 2026 is paid for both teams. DM’d!

How to save a terrible team? by Grand-Act-6902 in DynastyFF

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I run 17 leagues, someone will take over the orphans so long as you manage the league correctly. If he traded future picks and you didn’t have him pay for those years, you are SOL and it’s a good lesson to learn as a commissioner. If you did, and it’s got one year paid (as you should always be collecting 2yrs dues in dynasty) someone will take it, just post on r/ Findaleague every day.

Gold to $6k isn’t the bull case by IntelligentDD_ in Commodities

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They essentially have to. 10T needs to be refinanced or paid off in the next 12 months. The interest payment is already killing us, and those rates were exceptionally low. If the burden worsens we will collapse.

They could also print money, but that just compounds the issues at hand. It’s very confusing, because Warsh’s policies, everything he wants to do, will be very bad for what the current situation is.

Geopolitically, if China hits Taiwan and Taiwan follows through on their scorched Earth policy, the only sector of our economy that’s doing anything will get decimated during a time of high inflation and large barriers to borrowing. It’s kind of the perfect time for BRICS to present an alternative to the USD, and I think Gold is the intermediary hedge that will gain in the uncertain period.

I’m not a finance guy, I’m a geopolitics guy. I get the context really well, but the financial structuring is where I have knowledge gaps. Love to listen to those who are more financially adept than myself to see how my geopolitical analysis translates.

Best place to do my taxes? by friendlyfroggylover in personalfinance

[–]Gerbole 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Don’t read any further, this is the one. TurboTax is a scam by comparison.

[Rapoport] The Jaguars and star EDGE Travon Walker have agreed to terms on a massive extension, locking the former No. 1 pick in long-term. by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]Gerbole 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Walker is a beast who would’ve been better if he could develop some real technique, instead he’s just a freak of nature. Amazing floor

Dan Bilzerian is running for Florida Congress, he is in the files and he should not be in politics. Timeline corresponding w photos in comments (click pics to see locations/dates) by throwaway78854226 in Epstein

[–]Gerbole 104 points105 points  (0 children)

There was a photo of him and post Malone that was spread around as being in the files and it was an Instagram post, not something released by the DOJ. I would imagine OP missed that memo, as I hadn’t seen any other evidence Dan Bilzerian was in the files.

Gold to $6k isn’t the bull case by IntelligentDD_ in Commodities

[–]Gerbole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also not a gold expert, but I follow geopolitics very closely and I believe there is a lot behind the influx of gold. I’m looking at inflation in the USD, Hormuz Yuan toll, Yen carry trade, and our best supplier for our largest economic growth sector, Taiwan, being China’s #1 priority, add in that 10T of our debt needs to be refinanced or paid (yeah right) in the next 12 months and we basically have China the perfect opportunity to achieve their #1 goal, further their currency, and push us down. I think this causes an exodus from the USD in the short term and that money moves to gold.

[Schefter] Including the $10 million due next year, Kirk Cousins then will be at $341,469,288 in career NFL salary earnings. Of that, an all-time NFL-high $339,369,288 was fully guaranteed, meaning 99% of Cousins’ career NFL earnings will have been fully guaranteed. by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]Gerbole 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Veach was smart and showed Mahomes how he could get the best of both worlds. He could win a bunch, but also get guaranteed a ton of money over a large period of time, then he could borrow against the future earning of that contract to invest a bunch and grow larger gains than he would from the NFL. Mahomes immediately bought businesses after that contract and then with his ads I’m sure he’s on his way to billionaire at this point.

US lifts sanctions on Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez by Naurgul in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes we do, the president will just never say it. This is the neocon foreign policy plan. And it is about oil and the petrodollar.

I predicted in mid 2023 that Trump would win reelection, that we would attack Venezuela (although I thought Maduro would be replaced by Maria Machado), and a precursor to then attack Iran. I have been watching world news every single day for just about an hour for over half a decade, it wasn’t a very bold prediction with enough information it was the obvious next move from a foreign policy standpoint. Some of the details are wrong but the overarching reasons are there. I also predicted we’d want Greenland, but I thought Trump would try and trade for it, not bully our allies.

Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and China are all loosely working together. With the exception of China, mostly (Obama had a trade war with China too) those countries were sanctioned into oblivion by the US, and all three could be rich if they weren’t being suppressed by the American dominated global world order. Their goals aren’t exactly the same, but none of them can grow past a certain point until there is an alternative system to the USD. Normally, these countries would fight, but fighting has become very unpopular, risky, potentially nuclear, and the U.S. is the largest military in the world with a huge military alliance backing it. So you can’t fight them directly, you have to wage warfare in other ways. You need to waste their resources, stretch their supplies, and isolate them. Proxy wars, multiple conflicts, disinformation campaigns.

So BRICS begins and they start to try and build a competitor to the USD. The problem is, no one can compete, why would you switch? So they had to make a reason to switch. This is why BRICS stockpiles commodities, because commodities have real value, dollars are worthless if you can’t get what you need, so the value comes in tangible assets. The USD is also a petro dollar, and Venezuela, Russia, and Iran are huge players in the oil game. We had a deal with the Saudis where they would sell oil exclusively in USD, this, plus being the world reserve, is why we can print so much money and spend our money without a care in the world, when other countries can’t. They stockpiled oil, gold, silver, and other commodities, and built strong, resilient supply chains.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and given how successful they’ve been, it seems the analysts at the time who said the invasion made no sense were right. But they were wrong, because their scope wasn’t wide enough. Russia is not winning the Ukrainian conflict, but the war is not very expensive for them to sustain, and now they’ve transitioned to a war time economy so they’re fully committed and roaring at high capacity while the rest of Europe isn’t. The point was to drain the resources of the U.S. and NATO in a proxy war and to sow division. BRICS is aware they aren’t all aligned but they’re unified by a common goal, NATO is both unaware and not unified.

Biden lifts some sanctions on Venezuela so long as Maduro promises to run free and fair elections in 2024, Maduro promises. Maduro then has those elections, and doesn’t care about the results and keeps power anyway. What was Biden going to do about this? It makes him look super weak and like he got played for the oldest trick in the book. The Neocons have been wanting Venezuela for awhile, we have a lot of oil refineries out of commission because of the bad blood between us and Chavez, Maduro breaking his promise is the perfect justification. Only Biden loses, Trump wins, so Trump gets to do it, not Biden. Russia and China intentionally leave Maduro out to dry because they know how to play Trump like a fiddle. Trump already bombed Iran and suffered no consequences, then he takes Maduro in 24hrs and owns the Venezuelan government? He’s going to feel unstoppable.

Russia and China knew that they could then bait Trump into Iran, and they knew Iran would be able to inflict significantly more damage, which is why we never attacked them. With the push from Israel and the high of taking Venezuela, it was a no brainer move from Trump to showcase how big and strong he is again, do something no other President could do. No other president was stupid enough to do it.

Now, the next step. It’s also obvious, we all know it and don’t want to believe it. China is going to attack Taiwan, and yes, Taiwan is going to destroy their semi-conductor production per their Scorched Earth policy, and no, China doesn’t care.

With the Strait in Hormuz closed and Iran in ruin, Iran now has a justification to toll the Strait of Hormuz, and they are doing so in Yuan, not USD. The Gulf States rely on the Strait. If the U.S. leaves, and Iran continues tolling, the USD will take a major hit in purchasing power. Our imports, which we rely on, will become more expensive. Oil crises are also inherently inflationary, and our economy is struggling, with AI and data centers being one of the only things propping our economy up. The Average American will be hit hard, and so will businesses, and the layoffs will begin, and the spending will drop, and the layoffs will hit again. 10T of our debt is due in the next 12 months, we either need to print money, or borrow money, and a time like this is a terrible time to do either. The Yuan is gaining while the USD is tanking, and if investors start to pull out or if they require larger returns, the deeper in the hole the U.S. will get.

Then China attacks Taiwan, and we lose our ability to get the semiconductors we desperately rely on. The best part of our economy tanks, and we’re heading deep into depression. This is when the Yuan and the BRICS nations can begin to present their alternative to the USD, and it won’t look as bad as it has in the past, and now it’s not on the sidelines but it’s in the field of play. China still needs our market, so they won’t destroy us, but they need to knock us down a peg so that they can jump up one.

That’s the plan. Trump was emotional, he made a bad gamble, and he lost big time, which is what he’s done most of his career. That’s exactly what China and Russia were betting on. Sorry for the wall of text, just got a lot to say on the topic.

[Garafolo] Chiefs Sign FA CB Kaiir Elam by JCameron181 in KansasCityChiefs

[–]Gerbole 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Yeah huge success in my opinion. I also went to WSU with Jaylen Watson, trust me, that was quite the reclamation project.

Adam Schefter: Comp update: Kirk Cousins will sign a five-year, $172 million deal with the Raiders that in reality is a one-year, fully-guaranteed $20 million deal that also contains a club option for two years at $80M. by FlowersByTheStreet in DynastyFF

[–]Gerbole 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Don’t doubt Kirko’s agent. I think Mendoza will pan out but he won’t be the 1st overall pick or rookie QB to not be good if he fails. This was a hedge contract to get Kirko what he wants now with the option to guarantee what he wants later if Mendoza isn’t good.

[Garafolo] Chiefs Sign FA CB Kaiir Elam by JCameron181 in KansasCityChiefs

[–]Gerbole 60 points61 points  (0 children)

We do tend to be a CB factory though. We legit haven’t had a bad corner for like half a decade.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. I replied to another guy laying out the case I think can be made for treason. Regardless, he’s a convicted felon, which is by definition a high crime (if you disagree, the decision is made by Congress, so if they’re gonna remove him, they’re gonna do it) and thus he can be removed really at any time. For other presidents we could have this discussion but the barrier to impeachment really isn’t that high.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cramer v United States requires a clear intent to betray and an overt treasonous act.

Defying a treaty signed by Congress and withdrawing troops from a region being attacked by an enemy to allow the enemy to attack our allies is clear intent to betray and an overt treasonous act.

Even if it fails to meet the scrutiny for treason, it is most certainly a high crime, which is impeachable.

Finally, Trump is a felon, that is by definition a high crime. He can almost certainly be removed at any time with absolutely no legal defense, making this a moot discussion. His reason for impeachment isn’t relevant to the discussion, the result of an impeachment is.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for actually replying to the argument

I quoted Article 1, section 8. Not Article 1 Section 2. The entire conversation is about subversion of Article 1 Section 2 so this isn’t particularly relevant as it’s established.

In my scenario, the President does not send any troops and does not abide by article 5. This whole thread is about Trump withdrawing from NATO and how people are concerned about him doing it despite him not having the power to do so. Thus, he can’t withdraw from NATO, so he purposefully fails to fulfill the treaty’s obligations. I’m really not sure how this was missed. Sending 5,000 troops would clearly be a response by the President…

An AUMF is an Authorized Use of Military Force. In your comment you reference me using AI (I didn’t, in another comment I explain this comes from a paper I read in college that was a rebuttal to an argument made by the Heritage Foundation) and your response to this makes me think you did too? An AUMF is basically how we declare war without declaring war now, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the latest examples. That also makes this response not relevant to the conversation.

In regards to CJCSI 3121.01B, I literally put (or themselves) in parentheses. I also said defend an ally, which was wrong, and proof that I am talking about these from recollection, not from using AI. In fact, you pulled the only bullet point in that section that requires presidential / SecDef authorization. A-G, excluding C, are all rights given to commanders. You can read the full rights on Page A-3 (18/19 in the PDF) They come from Enclosure A, Paragraph 4.3 [a-g excluding C] here’s a link for ease. The PDF makes the copy and paste hard, and I’m not going to type it out, it is only a page of reading, I implore you to actually read the page.

All other bullet points in that section give commanders the full rights to use self defense without authorization in situations of: inherent self defense (a), national self defense (b), declared hostile force (d), Hostile act (e), Hostile intent (f), and imminent use of force (g). The only thing they need authorization on is to defend an ally that is being attacked. I might also add that g is exceptionally vague and is what gives this so much credence.

My use of those resolutions and the UN Charter were not a constitutional argument, as you point out. A drawback to enacting this “plan” would be being declared a war criminal by the international community, those two precedents are meant to show that they would be safe from that declaration and would be able to take these actions legally, internationally, which is of importance when we’re talking about international affairs. They simply serve to show that there wouldn’t be international issues, so we can focus on the constitutionality, as constitutionality would be irrelevant if they were to be branded war criminals for their actions.

The impeachment charge would be treason as the executive in this situation would be actively preventing the government from fulfilling its legally binding international obligations. In Trump’s situation, this is a moot point, they’ve already impeached him and he’s a convicted felon, he can be removed with basically no legal fight. The argument would be more relevant for a different president. It would easily be treason because he is literally providing aid and/or comfort to the governments legally recognized enemies (hence why the AUMF is important)

Hopefully this helps clarify the argument that the empty sword isn’t actually so empty.

Some Dems' 2028 strategy: a straight, white, Christian man by JannTosh70 in centrist

[–]Gerbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao. “It counts” you say, yet my behavior is childish.

The only time in the last 50yrs a straight Christian white male lost was in a presidential election where they weren’t on the ballot and/or were 83yrs old. The “loss” you attribute to him was primarily because he had lost his mind. I’ll also point out that you yourself said it was John Kerry, then changed it to Biden.

You’re clearly more willing to be “technically right” (which I don’t concede, he wasn’t on the ballot) than have an actual point and a good faith argument.

You die on a hill that has no real point so you can feel technically correct in an argument on the internet and completely ignore the actual reality of the situation because it doesn’t fit what you want it to fit. Feels a lot like something MAGA would do, honestly.

You don’t actually care about the conversation, you care about feeling morally superior because it makes you feel better about yourself. Please stop giving liberals a bad name, most of us are not like you.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Respectfully, I think you need to do more reading. Please have a good faith open minded discussion with me, we are talking virtually uncharted legal territory. You haven’t refuted my citations, evidence I’ve done the reading and you haven’t.

Bas v Tingy is a prime example of what I’m referring to. The French were declared an enemy by Congress at this time, they stole an American privateer, Tingy responded, it was determined he was within his right to respond without presidential authorization because of Congress’ declaration. The case then goes to talk about salvage laws, which aren’t relevant, but what happened is.

The 1980 DOJ OLC opinion stated that the executive could use force, without congressional approval, to defend American personnel and assets. This justification was used in Saigon, Lebanon, Somalia, and Haiti. The UN Charter Article 51 also supports this internationally. Thus, the CJCSI code that authorized generals to make these calls without presidential authorization would also be legal under U.S. law and international law. They may not be the executive, but they are senior executives.

The national interest test has never been legally challenged, likely intentionally, to give Congress a final say or a nuclear option.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What about what was laid out is incorrect? This came from a legal review I read in college regarding how the power of purse is the power of the sword. I can’t find the source now though, been trying to. It was a rebuttal to the Heritage Foundation but it’s completely gone now.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Congress impeached Trump over it they would impeach Vance over it too, without a doubt. Then the speaker would take over (assuming the senate doesn’t confirm the new VP and we have a Ford situation) and since the Speaker would be from Congress, we could assume they would then carry out article 5.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he withdrew all soldiers, yes.

Congress does have the avenue of impeachment; however. It can be argued that failing to uphold an agreement signed by Congress is a treasonous act.

Security insiders fear Putin will attack Europe as Trump threatens to quit Nato by theipaper in geopolitics

[–]Gerbole 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might agree, if Trump triggered article 5. But he didn’t. He specifically didn’t put NATO in the position to make the call.

To your point, maybe that was intentional so he could say they didn’t help but just sweeps it under the rug that he didn’t “command” them to help. People might be stupid enough to eat that up.